Connecticut News

[jp the roadgeek]

A couple of things that are driving me batty about the new signage.

1. Why can't they just use Storrs instead of Mansfield for CT 195?  Most travelers using that exit have heard of Storrs but not Mansfield.  That would be like using Windham instead of Willimantic or Winchester instead of Winsted.

2.  It is absolutely ridiculous how EB and WB signage now have to match; why would anyone in their right mind going westbound go down to Willington and take CT 32 back north to get to Stafford Springs?  CT 190 goes there, and you don't have to go an extra 15 miles out of the way.  I suppose these are for the people coming off of 90 East in Sturbridge that are going to NYC 

[abqtraveler]

A couple of things that are driving me batty about the new signage.

1. Why can't they just use Storrs instead of Mansfield for CT 195?  Most travelers using that exit have heard of Storrs but not Mansfield.  That would be like using Windham instead of Willimantic or Winchester instead of Winsted.

2.  It is absolutely ridiculous how EB and WB signage now have to match; why would anyone in their right mind going westbound go down to Willington and take CT 32 back north to get to Stafford Springs?  CT 190 goes there, and you don't have to go an extra 15 miles out of the way.  I suppose these are for the people coming off of 90 East in Sturbridge that are going to NYC 

Because the rules on highway signage implemented by the federal government don't give states any latitude to do something that actually makes sense.

[RobbieL2415]

A couple of things that are driving me batty about the new signage.

1. Why can't they just use Storrs instead of Mansfield for CT 195?  Most travelers using that exit have heard of Storrs but not Mansfield.  That would be like using Windham instead of Willimantic or Winchester instead of Winsted.

2.  It is absolutely ridiculous how EB and WB signage now have to match; why would anyone in their right mind going westbound go down to Willington and take CT 32 back north to get to Stafford Springs?  CT 190 goes there, and you don't have to go an extra 15 miles out of the way.  I suppose these are for the people coming off of 90 East in Sturbridge that are going to NYC 

1. I personally prefer locations on BGSs to only be incorporated municipalities. Does Occum really need to be a destination on I-395, or Versailles? Or Westchester on CT 2? Now Willimantic used to be it's own city, but Stores never has been -- it's just a CDP.

2. I dont really have an opinion on this.

[Rothman]

A couple of things that are driving me batty about the new signage.

1. Why can't they just use Storrs instead of Mansfield for CT 195?  Most travelers using that exit have heard of Storrs but not Mansfield.  That would be like using Windham instead of Willimantic or Winchester instead of Winsted.

2.  It is absolutely ridiculous how EB and WB signage now have to match; why would anyone in their right mind going westbound go down to Willington and take CT 32 back north to get to Stafford Springs?  CT 190 goes there, and you don't have to go an extra 15 miles out of the way.  I suppose these are for the people coming off of 90 East in Sturbridge that are going to NYC 

Because the rules on highway signage implemented by the federal government don't give states any latitude to do something that actually makes sense.

Huh?  No.

[shadyjay]

There is secondary signage posted for "UCONN/Storrs" for Exit 68.  This actually makes more sense than just the previous "University of Connecticut" sign.  With several UCONN campuses, adding Storrs to it drives home the point that its the main campus. 

There is also secondary signage for Windham for Exit 70.  But Exit 70 heading WB is definitely the quicker way to get to Willington.  I get it... Exit 69 WB needed something better than Putnam.  Which made zero sense. 

My guess is for Willimantic, it may get moved to Exit 59 signage (when that gets replaced eventually) for I-384, as the present signage is "Spencer St/Silver Ln".  That crys out secondary signage.. not primary, and definitely not for a 3DI. 

The worst case of "let's make both directions match" is on I-691 in Meriden.  Former Exit 6 WB is signed "71/Chamberlain Hwy" when it should say "TO 71/Lewis Ave" like it used to.  And former Exit 12 EB (new Exit 1) is signed "East Main St" when it doesn't go there... it should be "Preston Ave".  All ramp signage when it was changed out still has the old destinations (Broad St, Preston Ave, Lewis Ave, etc) as if the old signage was still in place. 

[zzyzx]

https://apple.news/A1eY_HEgDT0aqL8mBLuf_Gg

From the CT Post:

A bridge to Long Island? Prolific Bridgeport-area housing developer has ideas he wants to share:

EASTON — Stephen Shapiro's name has become synonymous with housing developments, with some 20 either in process or complete throughout the greater Bridgeport area.
But the Easton developer has a grander vision — one that calls for the creation of a 14-mile-long bridge spanning Long Island Sound, connecting Connecticut to Long Island. He sees it going from Bridgeport, across the Sound to Sunken Meadow State Parkway.
"That's my dream," said Shapiro, who has housing projects throughout the area, including Fairfield, Easton, Bristol, Trumbull, Milford and Shelton. "Imagine getting to Ocean Beach from here in 45 minutes."
Shapiro is not the first to envision this bridge — with a lower level for train service connecting Metro-North to the LIRR — traversing the Sound. New York officials have commissioned studies in the past on this, but Shapiro hopes to spur interest in Connecticut for this project.
"It would bring in $8 to $10 billion a year in revenue ... yes, the initial construction would cause some issues, but the final result would be an economic boon," Shapiro added. "This is not my idea ... it is something that should have been done that has never gotten done."
Shapiro said such a bridge, with its connection in Bridgeport, would help to revitalize the Park City and bring financial benefit to the Valley and state while alleviating traffic in lower Fairfield County.
And this idea is catching the eyes of some lawmakers as well.
"A project that can bring in revenue and that will lower taxes, bring jobs and economic growth as well as protect American lives in the event of a natural disaster should welcomed with open arms," said state Rep. Joe Hoxha, who represents Bristol and Plymouth and a member of the Naugatuck Valley COG.
Next step, he says, is making the public aware this is a possibility. Then it would be bringing in the federal government, which could provide a source of millions in grant money to offset costs.

Shapiro said the greatest benefit would be cutting traffic bottlenecks in New York City and Connecticut, specifically I-95 and the Merritt Parkway in Fairfield County, two of the worst, most congested stretches in the country.
He said a $39 bridge toll — less than the cost of the ferry and 1/5 the travel time — would pay for construction in 48 years, and this does not consider any other economic benefits.
Shapiro said it would add a safety component in case Long Island would ever again be hit with a hurricane like the Long Island Clipper, a devastating Category 3 also known as the "Long Island Express" that hit the region in 1938, causing widespread damage and deaths. He says this bridge answers how 8 million people could evacuate if ever needed.
"I am always thinking about what's next ... where can I help make this a better place," said Shapiro, who was born in Bridgeport and grew up in Fairfield. "This would be it."
Now, Shapiro spends his time creating housing projects throughout the greater Bridgeport area. Connecticut is in desperate need of accessible, affordable housing – and he says he is answering the call.
Shapiro began his real estate career a couple years after dropping out of Fairfield University when he was 19. He bought his first house at 22 and did his first flip at 23.
He proceeded to flip more than 100 homes before shifting to larger housing developments.
"I kept growing, learning and doing," Shapiro said.
"I was building new houses, dealing with zoning already," he added. "I lived here my whole life ... I know the place like the back of my hand. I figured if I am already working with zoning just building a house, why not go for something bigger."
Shapiro presently has 20 developments — either in process or complete — in municipalities from Bristol to Fairfield to Milford and everywhere in between.
His goal — create more middle income housing, sometimes called workforce housing, allowing town employees and seniors to have an affordable option.
"I did not come up with the shortage, naturally occurred in economy," said Shapiro, adding this change happened in earnest during COVID. "Now it's through the roof."
Shapiro has approved plans in Fairfield (19 units on Stillson Road, presently under appeal by neighbors, and 39 units as part of a 8-30g text amendment approval on Congress Street); Bristol (28 units of hospital workforce housing); Monroe (a five-unit single family subdivision); Newtown (eight-unit single family subdivision); and Stratford (14 units of workforce housing and a five-unit single family subdivision).
He also has pending applications in Fairfield (108 units on Biro Street); Trumbull (48 units on Reservoir Avenue); Shelton (on separate plans for Shelton Avenue and Armstrong Road); Milford; and the Easton/Trumbull line on Plum Tree Road.
Shapiro has been most vocal about "middle housing," or multifamily residential developments more moderate in size and scale than towering apartment buildings. 
He's teamed up with former Connecticut Speaker of the House Jim Amann to lobby state lawmakers for middle housing incentives at the local level.
This workforce component would allow for town employees, including teachers, police and fire personnel, as well as senior citizens to have first crack at renting units during the first 30 days the development is taking applications.
Shapiro wants middle housing developments to get the same exemptions from local zoning regulations as affordable housing projects under 8-30g. The state legislature is considering a bill that would offer grants to public housing authorities for middle housing developments.
"This is not a partisan issue, it's a fact," Shapiro said. "Everyone knows Connecticut is short on housing, and we need to work together for reasonable density developments in reasonably placed areas."
He said there are extremes on both sides of the issue, but people need to cross party lines to find solutions.
"There is a real level of insanity when it comes to housing," Shapiro said.
And he knows all too well, with his applications drawing the ire of residents in every community he files plans. He faces opposition in letters, petitions and ultimately appeals, as is the case with his townhouse project in Fairfield. He has since received approval for a 66-unit apartment building under the state's 8-30g statute for the same site.
"This type of housing not only helps you attract more talent ... the teacher, cop, firefighter ... but also alleviate what is the worst traffic in situation the United States," said Shapiro, noting I-95 and Merritt Parkway from Bridgeport to Stamford.
The housing he proposes in most cases sits near public transportation. Affordable housing also allows people to live where they work.
"The benefits to society are so common sense, I don't get the opposition," he added.
"This housing climate may not last forever ... I want to serve the need based on what the climate is, based on what the needs are for society, the economy. But I want to do more than just housing ... I want to do what is best for society."
And that next project may be a bridge over Long Island Sound waters.
Correction: This story has been updated to correct the name of the Sunken Meadow State Parkway.

[Plutonic Panda]

This is a common sense thing that a lot of countries provably would've already done but this is the US and I give this idea about as much as a chance of happening as the Bering Straight Bridge. I hope I'm wrong.

[Rothman]

P.T. Barnum's spirit has inhabited another body.

[The Ghostbuster]

Bridges and tunnels connecting to and from Long Island have been proposed for decades, and none have ever been built. I highly doubt that will change in the future. As for the housing proposal, I would support making land development less dense, instead of making it more dense.